Two years ago a local dealership let me take a Trek Speed Concept out for a spin, but it felt terrible. Not only was it a torture rack, it also felt very unstable trying to steer it with my elbows resting on those pads. In Trek's defense, that bike wasn't set up for me at all. They just pulled one off the floor, put some pedals on it and pushed me out the door.

Yeah, a tri bike needs to be setup for the rider, for sure. Pad placement and extension angle are hugely important. Furthermore, you'll need to learn to steer with your shoulders/upper body to reduce/slow bar input. Otherwise, you end up with the instability you describe. Don't steer with your elbows!

I actually live in the third most populated county in the state. It's a matter of choosing my route carefully. There's only one direction I can head without hitting traffic and urban sprawl. My rides have to go a half hour that direction before I can start just wandering down any road I come across without being stuck back on a road I prefer not to ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummee!

Except for the fact that I've got more trees, that could be around here too.

Its easy to get lots of climbing in when your roads are either going up or down. Not a whole lot of flat just to my west. M

I pretty much have the option of going around the hills or up and over them. It makes pushing the rides a bit further easier as I know I always have the option to bail on the worst hills and go around them on the way home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mud

That would be nice, here you have to hunt for hills....

Two years ago, I finally managed to get sent to Minnesota for work during the summer. Unlike winter trips there, when the only thing I found to do was sit in a bar, I was able to bring my bike and enjoy the weather. Yep, the riding sure is much easier up there, and the scenery is better too.

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

Come up to the GSW (granite state wheelmen) Seacoast century
It's mosly at sealevel

Compared to the rest of the state, it's downright flat.

I live right at the edge of the 'coastal plain' here in the DC area. I forget what its called, but its where the tide stops when it comes in. To my east? Flatter. To my west? Hilly. If I want to stay flat, I can.

As much as I hate them, I get a better workout going into the hills.

M

__________________
I'm a cyclist that rides motos, not a moto rider that rides bicycles.

as Gary Klein put it when someone asked him why he used radial spoking on his bikes about (30 years ago), "the question is why NOT?". at that time the concern he cited for not using radial spoking was that most hubs of the day didn't have flanges strong enough to handle the stresses placed on them by the direct spoke.

i'm not a big fan of most outtathebox wheels, but have put many miles on a pair of (early) Rolfs that i picked up for giggles and ended up riding most of the time for a coupla' years. finally sold them to a lighter-weight friend because even though i couldn't find any problem with them, just the idea of my 200lb+ sack of lard bombing the descents that i enjoy so much on 1300g wheels bothered me somehow. (that, and my friend had recently found his DreamBike, and being on a newlywed budget needed some help).
the only possible downside might be that due to the increased tension and the stiffer rims that are necessary for the low-spoke-count radial-laced wheels, they were a tiny bit (almost imperceptibly) harsher riding than more conventional wheels, but the Rolfs were a delight on the ascents, and i rather miss that,... but frankly, getting myself in better shape would make more of a difference than riding light wheels did.

these days i travel mostly on hand-built conventional wheels; Open Pro or Velocity rims with 32 very light 3x spokes in the front (with brass nipples for long-term maintainability), and slightly heavier spokes in the rear laced 3x drive side/2x non-drive side for more even spoke tensioning. not as light as the the Rolfs (or the GEL280s i ran way back in the day), but a more comfortable ride, and i just don't think about them.

as for "how... thousands of feet in elevation in a ride", it's like so many other things; you just get better at it with practice. (that and the fact that i can't hardly go for any kind of decent ride around here without doing a coupla' thousand feet of elevation.)

but mostly, i'm not especially good at or fond of going up, but coming down is another story... i go up to come down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImaPoser

Ok, yes, I'm a poser, yes, it isn't diddly squat compared to most of ya'lls ride reports, but for some reason, a few miles in to today's ride, I decided to pull out the camera and start snapping photos.
This is my typical "hill day" route. 27 miles, right at 1500 ft in climbing. Yes, not anything compared to you mountain dwellers, but my "flat day" ride is 20 or 28(two loops or three) with less than 400 feet in climbing.

And that's about all the hills I want to hit in a day. How you guys can ride thousands of feet in elevation in a ride is beyond me.

I live right at the edge of the 'coastal plain' here in the DC area. I forget what its called, but its where the tide stops when it comes in. To my east? Flatter. To my west? Hilly. If I want to stay flat, I can.

As much as I hate them, I get a better workout going into the hills.

M

I live on a ski mountain, so hills are not something I can avoid, unless I stick the bike on the roof rack and drive somewhere. The Seacoast Century is my treat for the year.

As for radial wheels, I have a set of Campy Scirocco's that have been quite bombproof, I got them used about 5 years ago, and they've never needed truing, they aren't on the bike full-time though, my conventional 32 spoke tubbies are more comfortable.